Did You Know 4.0

the proliferation of information and thus the importance of information management

why i research politico-econ

econ is aimed at trying to find efficient allocations of goods.

we know how to efficiently allocate private goods: markets.
[private goods = rival (one's consumption prevents another) and excludable (the seller can exclude non-paying consumers, free-riders). example = chewing gum].

we know how to efficiently allocated common goods; ascribe property rights and they can also be efficiently allocated by markets (coase thm).
[common goods = rival, but non-excludable. ie, boston commons. these are goods generally susceptible to externalities, hence the application of coase's thm].

the jury is still out on club goods (goods susceptible to market power, p>mc).

becker is confident that the costs of govt intervention are larger than the benefits because dynamic competition on that good brings p closer to mc without the dwl of govt intervention.

http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/06/on_privatizing_1.html

also, was just watching one of milton friedman's last interviews, and he said his biggest mistake was being such a proponent of anti-trust regulation in his younger years.

[club goods = non-rival, excludable. roads, golf course, cable networks].

thus, the last type of good, public goods, are the only type of goods that all economists, except for the extreme anarcho-capitalists, trust should be allocated by the government, and can be done so efficiently through a vcg mechanism.
[public goods = nonrival, nonexcludable. ie national defense. protecting one does not prevent the protection of another. if someone doesn't pay taxes, we can not prevent their protection. think missile defense].

other market failures, ie asymmetric info, can be handled by markets too. introduction of a new information resolving service market. how carmax is making money in the lemon market.

macro-economists are probably pointing at the potential of curing inefficiencies in dynamic environments or by manipulating aggregates.

with dynamics there as some additional games you could play like Shell and passing forward a generation to make the old better and hurt no one else because of infinity, but that's kind of lame.
manipulating aggregates, let's not go there. see any hayek vs. keynes discussion.

point is, we're at a time, when the standard econ game might be closing down.

overall this is good because it means we know how to efficiently allocate many things.

to me, the questions with the biggest remaining welfare implications have to do with positively characterizing inefficiencies in our political process. the efficiency of current political resource allocations in our grab bag system.

many facets of our system are very good and have lasted a long time, but are they optimal? are there welfare gains that could be had from minor modifications?

i keep my research at

http://www.mastronardi.net/

(but it is in need of some maintenance and paper version updates)

Remembering McNamara

As we struggle to find the best avenue out of our current recession, a Robert McNamara quotation always seems to percolate in the back of my head. In rememberance of his recent death, I'll take this opportunity to share.

"The government is not in the business of putting small business out of business."

A good way to intepret this quoatation is the following. In every industry and every market that the government participates (either the government provides a good or service, purchases a good or service, or regulates non-government to non-government transactions of goods or services), its participation influences the market, generally making it more difficult for small businesses to survive.

When the government provides a good or service it is very hard for private industry small businesses to compete with them. The government does not have to be profitable and is financed by a large and captive audience.

Less directly, consider the market effect when the government regulates a market. OSHA, the government office that tries to regulate labor markets to make working conditions better, may at first glance appear to do no wrong. in reality however it can be a very subtle and very manipulated agency by large business victimizing small business. Large businesses give politicians campaign funds. One way politicians may reward such businesses is to make code overly protective and convoluted so that the entry of a new small business competitor is prevented by compliance costs. They are repaying the business by eliminating competition, and to the unaware citizen, these policies can seem glorious. In public finance terms, government regulation can act as a significant and highly regressive corporate tax.


As an alternative, if we simply allowed the worker to choose for himself if he were willing to work a particular job for a given wage, two competing firms would have to ultimately compete to lure workers by providing them higher wages and safer work environments on their own. Suddenly government safety regulations no longer appear as necessary or innocuous.


A bad way to interpret this quotation is as i was instructed during my military acquisitions training. sometimes when the government hires private defense contractors to provide goods or services the government knowingly provides them a profit. i suggested that the government could save taxpayers money by not paying that profit, to which the instructor quoted McNamara "the government is not in the business of putting small business out of business." But, as long as the government isn't requiring a firm to provide a good or service, they should never take a contract that's not in their interest anyway.


in conclusion, for those large-government command & control democrats who want lots of government interaction in a variety of markets, remember the impact on free enterprise encapsulated in this McNamara quotation. "the government is not in the business of putting small business out of business"

For sell-out Republicans who espouse policy that favors the big businesses that wine and dine them, remember you are just as guilty of creating an environment unfriendly toward American small business free enterprise. i offer a parallel quoatation "the government is not in the business of making big business bigger"

the business of the government is simple, and was simply identified by Arrow in the 1950s. The government is in the business of simply correcting market failures.

thanks to mcnamara for inspring today's conversation.

econosseur

A couple of buddies of mine from econ grad school at UT, Jason DeBacker and Rick Evans, have a very successful blog with good insight and a running compilation of the best econ jokes available. their blog was recently cited as an officially sanctioned AEA blog, and perhaps more importantly referenced by Mankiw's blog (see ad hominem post).

blog
http://www.econosseur.com/

jokes
http://www.econosseur.com/economic-jokes.html


btw, if you check out Rick's professor page
http://econ.byu.edu/Faculty/Evans/
he has a link to UT econ intramural sports recaps.
http://econ.byu.edu/Faculty/Evans/other.dhtml
(i was the first receiver on that hook and ladder.
rick to me to Debacker for a TD!)

little POLCO growing up

http://www.capitalfactory.com/2009/04/2009-finalists.html

Bandwidth Limitations

It was recently announced in local news (Austin Statesman) that Time Warner Cable was considering imposing customer bandwidth limitations. When customers use more than a specific amount of bandwidth, Time Warner would begin to charge extra fees. This means that if you watch just a little streaming video, use YouTube or Pandora a lot, you would probably be paying some fees. Time Warner argues that they are experiencing more bandwidth demand than they had previously anticipated.

Below is my comment to the Austin Statesman article. Maybe you agree.

"
If Time Warner is having bandwidth demand it can't handle, it needs to re-assess it's bandwidth supply. Everything but live or real-time events should be accessible on demand only. This would free up tons of bandwidth, no need to continually broadcast thousands of channels no one is watching. We know time-warner is a regulated industry, but still try to provide service like a competitive industry. when you have problems, don't just charge the user more and decrease consumer surplus.
this will unnecessarily blemish Austin's tech reputation, and Texas's efficient markets reputation.
"

academic final stretch

well folks, a chapter in my life is drawing to a close.
i have scheduled my dissertation defense for 5 May 2009 (yes, Cinco de Mayo).
Last week was a pretty busy week preparing for 3 presentations and 3 conference submissions, but the oncoming weeks will be even more intense.
Even so, i don't view it as stressful, i enjoy the research
http://mastroresearch.googlepages.com/
The official graduation is 24 May 2009.

But as chapters draw to a close, new ones open. Even though i thoroughly enjoyed learning how to do professional economic research here at UT graduate school, i am excited about the new unfolding chapters. Hopefully it will have much to do with application of learned tools, implementation of conclusions drawn from research, and participation in the American free-enterprise system. However it turns out exactly, i look forward to tackling it with enthusiasm, passion and vigor with my wife Bobbie.

TX Senator about Bailout

you just got to see Sen Cornyn's first response about not being partisan to the reporter.

Libertarian Stimulus

I stole this link from Prof Mankiw's Blog (http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com)

here it is http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/05/miron.libertarian.stimulus/index.html

people have been asking me my perspective on the bailout, and in short, i agree with the vast majority of the article. the the items Miron lists would be hugely more helpful, less beaurecratics and less intrusive.

rc3

Sorry if I mis-interpreted your positions as Austrian. They seemed to extoll a situation with classic market failures as able to succeed without government intervention. Yeah, if you believe that government intervention is needed for market failures then that would be neo-classicism. But, private info in insurance markets is one of the classic market failures, so a neoclassicist to me, would endorse government intervention here. But, I agree this is not justification of government intervention by any means. It's not the point of the post. The point of the post is, if the government is intervened as it is, how can it reduce costs.

The argument in rational ignorance is the following. You claimed that poor US policies could be understood if economists abandoned a notion that voters are self-interested outside of voting, but altruistic when voting. Yes, this is possible, but I'm not sure if I agree that economists adopt that model. Altogether differently, I prefer to understand poor US policies as the result of rational ignorance, or non-representative political system. Yes, satisfying these two policies are not sufficient conditions for good policies. But, not satisfying them is an intuitive way for me to understand poor policies.

My arguments are not arguments for government intervention. They are arguments for, if the government will intervene to provide government insurance such as Medicaid and Medicare, how can it do so for the lowest cost.

True, there aren't formal models of costs and benefits of specification of use of government transfers. Yes, at first glance it appears that is improving to eliminate constraints, but just because there aren't models of the benefits of these constraints, doesn't mean that in reality there aren't benefits of these constraints. For example, it could be modeled that the search and process costs of converting baby food stamps is a deterrent to converting food to money with which alcohol or drugs might be bought.

Again, these models are not complete by any means. Academic models are a work in progress, and in desperate need of improvement, that 's the point of grad school econ. The point of this blog is not to simply apply leading models to policies, (that is policy analysis), it is also to include pieces of reality that are not modeled. This is true for unconstrained redistributive transfer models, and for public choice models.

ryan health comments 2

Great comments.

The positions you represent, which you probably know, are what is generally called the Austrian school of economic philosophy; with strong skepticism of any government involvement, highest regard for the individual and their ability to optimize without much market correcting mechanisms. This school of thought is emphasized at Auburn, and follows the writings of Ludwig von Mises and Hayek.

1. Yeah, I agree with the questioned need for government intervention. It has to do with efficiency of redistribution in general, an open question (see comment 5).

The discussion on moral hazard here is, if the government is already intervened in markets, and wants to minimize its expenditures, it should focus on reducing moral hazard. And, to do so, it should implement Medicaid and Medicare structures with higher co-pays and out-of-pocket payments, like the HMO approach. This is a major hope for any government program that wants to adapt its payee structure to reduce costs.

2. In any academic model I would write, it would be fatal to assume that individuals are not optimizing. That is a slippery slope which could explain anything. Away from academia and more realistically, I do believe the less-financially well-off forego buying adequate health insurance. My personal belief is that they do so because the effects aren't as tangible as physical commodities, but when they develop what appears to be a costly condition, they seek insurance; classic adverse selection. It's important because, doctors and hospitals and service missions help them, and ultimately, we all foot some of that bill, and that's my realistic general concern. My personal assessment of reality might be wrong. This is another good question.

3. Academically however, for empirical analysis of the degree of adverse selection and moral hazard in the US health insurance market, I like the model by Chiappori and Salanie, discussed in my re-production of that paper at http://mastroresearch.googlepages.com/ "Private Info for Health Care". It's a good complement to the Rand health experiment.

4. The big picture, like you mention, and I talked about in the last post, is the need to eliminate the information asymmetry, private information. That would indeed fix all the market problems. Unfortunately, health is more complicated than automobiles. Nonetheless, there are some institutional changes we could adopt to lessen the asymmetry. Having a more tiered approach; where patients first see a General practitioner before being allowed to seek a more expensive specialist, would greatly reduce costs by lessening the information asymmetry without government intervention. If the individual is not granted the General Practitioner's consent, the specialist visit either should not be covered, or less coverage than if they did receive consent. You could allow for payment recoupment if the individual did see the specialist and was vindicated in their complaints. The whole problem here is liability. Given the complexity of the human body, the malpractice coverage for General Practitioners would be expensive, and therefore they would pass those expenses to the patient. But, as time goes on, better records are kept, machines improve, and we learn more, those costs would drop. Plus, the Practitioners would have incentive to improve their service, reduce need for malpractice coverage, and get more patients. Reducing information asymmetry also eliminates adverse selection. These first tier practitioners would be hired by health insurers to provide screenings for pre-existing conditions.

5. Altogether, these are ways that current Govt Health Insurance programs could cut their costs. Private health insurance programs have already begun to adopt these measures. The need for existence of government health insurance programs is a different story, having to do with the general trend in our country to choose redistribution. Some argue that everyone is made better off by not having extremely sick cohabitating with extremely wealthy. Redistribution is costly, and if you think the costs outweigh the benefits, let your representatives know.

6. Your comment 3 is quite true and almost impossible to rebuke with a structural model; but it's not going to happen in the near term, and we are going to have to continue to pay the bills for government health insurance for at least a little while. Being pragmatic, a short term goal of economic policy analysis "how to achieve same coverage for less." The bigger picture is political and has to do with desired redistribution (comment 5).

7. Bad government policies do not necessarily imply that voters are not self-interested. That would assume that our political structure is perfectly representative, which we have reason to believe it is not. Given the improbability of actually being the decisive median voter, it is often justified as rational for a voter to be politically ignorant. When the costs of government ambivalence finally catch up with our country (not too far future in my perspective), we will see greater citizen involvement in political process. Another reason self-interested voter's policies might not get enacted are other imperfections in our political process, such as translucency in the quality of that individuals' representation. What exactly is the context of the legislation and all its amendments? What did the rep vote? What did the rest of your district want? Did the rep make a deal on that legislation that will actually help on more important policy tomorrow? Altogether, these two situations justify economist's position of why bad government policies get enacted while voters may still be self-interested. For a structural model of how special interest money can influence the political process from standard majority preferences, see my first paper FAMVM, again at http://mastroresearch.googlepages.com/

1. 
   

   
   

Health comment

In response to Ryan's comment from "Looming Health Care Crisis"

btw, thanks for the comments

1) right; health care is not a public good.

But, there are other market failures besides the markets for non-rival and non-excludable goods, that warrant government intervention, even by conservative economists' standards.

In particular, private information (hard to verify claims) hamper market transactions; whether a worker's back really hurts and he needs time off, or whether a used car salesman's car has some glitch somewhere.

Consider 10 used car salesmen, one of which is selling a lemon, but consumers are unable to discern which. All salesmen then must lower their price below fair value to deal with the customer's belief that their car might be the lemon. Introducing an independent verification service, as long as it costs less than the price reduction from having the lemon in the market, would make the good salesmen better off.

The problem is, with the health market, health diagnosis are not confident enough to stand by a verification service at this point, so the government is legitimately offering to stand in. Even as a minimal interventionist, this makes sense to me. The human body is still too complex relative to an automobile.

As an after thought, another market failure besides 'public goods' and 'private information' that could warrant government intervention in markets is 'market power', when firms don't act as price-takers. In this situation, the firms profit maximizing behavior can differ from a benevolent social planner's behavior when maximizing consumer surplus (total value added by market transactions).

2. I do think adverse selection is a real problem.

Sure, among financially well off individuals, most are buying health insurance as to insure against unforeseen risk. But, in less well off social circles, where money is tight, many individuals prefer to spend their money on more tangible commodities until they begin to believe that they might be afflicted with a very costly condition.

3. Last, health insurance is comparable to car insurance for just the reason you point out, the potential costs on others. Many people would find it objectionable to someone afflicted with a treatable emergency condition to die on the front steps of a hospital. And, since we wouldn't let that happen to those who don't pay for it, we shouldn't make anyone pay for it. Unforeseen emergency afflictions should be covered by a pool of small contribution from all who want to participate.

Sure, if you don't want to be pooled for this cheap coverage, you can wear a tag that either says "don't help me, I chose not to be pooled" or "help me, I don't have the pooled coverage, but I have been verified to have the financial resources to cover this emergency operation up to the level …"
Honestly, it would probably be just as cheap to include both 'those who want pooled coverage on emergencies' and 'those want to forego the coverage', since then insurance companies would not have to do any screening at all. They wouldn't have to worry about any adverse selection (people more prone to emergency, more likely to buy insurance) because everyone would be getting it. So, basically, we'd cover those who don't want it for free.

In conclusion, this is a great and timely conversation. In the wake of a severe implosion to the Republican Party, it reminds us of how the virtues of fiscally conservative policies should be considered in even the most Democratic agendas such as Health Care in order to get the most cost effective coverage with the least government infringement on our individual freedom of choice.